Daniel Negreanu's Latest Cardplayer Article

[NicksDad1970]

I think the defenition of bankroll is important here. I believe DS version of roll is something like no matter what happens to that he has a certain amount of income that will allow him to maintain his lifestyle.

If David loses a predetermined amount of his bankroll he steps down in some higer risk activities. Then evaluates his decisions and starts again.

I think DN is the same way except that the % of his bankroll he's willing to lose before he evaluates his decisions is much higher. That way he does have to change his lifestyle, maybe not by much, btu he still has to do it.

I think If DN is the risk taker and DS isn't (which I don't really agree there's only 2 categories) then DN has more excitement and DS has much more stability.

[Dalek]

I disagree with the statement that it is sad not to move out of your comfort zone. If poker is someone's career why take unnecessary risks? If it is a hobby why pay more to have the same fun?

I haven't read the article but trying to put everyone into two catergories is foolish.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile your point about your risk tolerance being decided by age 15 is true but unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I cannae change the heuristics of psychology.

[tippy]

[ QUOTE ]
Most haven't read it yet and those who haven't should reserve comment until they have. The jist of it is that he puts poker players into two categories, basically grinders and risk takers, and he then gives the pros and cons to both approaches.

I'll elaborate on my objections later on. But for now I would simply like to say that there is nothing that forces you to choose to be in either extreme category. Daniel claims that risk avoiders will never be found above 80-160 or 25-50 NL. Nonsense. He also implies that the highest players are making good decisions when they play against each other rather than play smaller and win more in the long run with less risk. And that there are good reasons to take big risks regarding going broke. Again nonsense.

I completely agree that those who never push themselves past their comfort level are somewhat sad cases. If you can afford it, play in higher games than you are used to if for no other reason than it will help your game. If things work out you just may move up the stakes ladder for good. Don't just think of poker as a steady job if there is any chance at all you have not reached your peak. But you can do all this without being a sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure we got the same thing out of the article. DN wasn't exactly assigning all players a label as either "nit/grinders" or "gambler/risktakers". And it wasn't to show what percentage of which level games were made of "johnnys or larrys".

I believe his point was to show what TYPE of people climb up the poker ladder to the highest games, as well as where some types of people stop climbing based on motivation and determination. It seems to be his subtle way of saying you will not get to the bigger games without taking some risks and investing time/energy to get better. Investing time and energy is in itself a risk--a risk many Larrys aren't willing to take. Sometimes this journey to secure knowledge has bumps along the way known as being busto. And I disagree with you when you say it isn't worth it to take risks of going broke. I agree with DN. It is worth it...if you get the knowledge you were seeking in addition. Tuition costs? Maybe.

Complacency won't get you to the highest games, it takes work and sometimes overstepping your bounds to get better. Johnny took risks, overstepped his limits to play with better players in order to make himself better. Money aside. Larry was complacent, lazy and probably happy to play in the little game he could beat. His skills are likely limited because of his underlying attitude. DN's point was that you just won't find many Larrys in the bigger games because they just don't have the underlying intangibles needed to push themselves to the quality of play needed for the higher games.

However, I think he could have made an addendum to the article by including reference to the "Peter Principle" wherein everyone rises to their own level of competency/incompetency. Every game has its Larrys and every game has its Johnnys. Labels depend on the underlying motivation and future progress of each player. One games Larry is another games Johnny.

[davidlong14]

Manichean fallacy.

[Taylor Caby]

i do agree there may be good reasons for some to take big risks of going broke.

three years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals and even if they had gone broke back in the day they would have just found some more backers.

this doesn't apply as much anymore, but it still sort of does. if some college kid grinds out a million online and heads straight to bobby's room, he either goes back to college broke like everyone else or he becomes a poker legend. the latter would likely afford him a few million (set for life if invested properly), endorsement deals, buyins to tourneys, and a lifetime of stakes should he ever go broke.

tc

[cwar]

Where is this article? I cant find it online is it released in the actual magazine?

[bustedromo]

Here's what's interesting to me:

(a) high # of opps with moderate +EV, each of which require small % of capital

vs

(b) small # of opps with very high +EV, each of which require very large % of capital

In poker, by "opps" I mean a session at a specific table, not hands. (b) would obviously require a lot less time than (a) to make the same income.

There are lots of example of (a) and (b) in trading. There are big name traders who don't have a problem committing 1000% (10x) leverage of their risk capital on a single (b) trade.

I don't think there is a (b) poker scenario. Those type of heavily skewed dist curves don't exist in poker.

An example I don't really believe would pan out is the following:

Take a very good 10/20 grinder whose bread-and-butter is games where bad players show up occassionally, lose a buy-in or two and walk. He sees a 100/200 game with a whale capable of donating millions who shows no problem losing buyin after buyin. He's extremely confident he can play avoidance with the pros at the table and take his share of blubber. His roll is 200K, and he's used to 2K buyins = 1% BR.

Should he step-up to 20K buyins = 10% BR ? Is the answer any different if he has a rule that he quits the table if he loses 1 buyin ? 2 buyins ?

[Victor]

"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals"

taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities.

and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money.

[mocky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"I completely agree that those who never push themselves past their comfort level are somewhat sad cases. If you can afford it, play in higher games than you are used to if for no other reason than it will help your game."

I think this is quite ignorant. If you are a kid playing for fun or playing for ego, sure, push yourself as much as you choose. If it is your career, you should play within your comfort zone. Undoubtedly you will have pushed yourself outside of it on your way to making it your career. But once there, to say it is sad to be responsible and have your job have some kind of stability is just pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also like to know who David Sklansky is as a poker player. I mean is he a high stakes online player? Live? Has his income come from actual cash game play since the poker boom? It's easy to say people should be playing over their comfort zones, but if it is what they do, it's isn't so clear.

[/ QUOTE ]



INSTA BAN!